Ranbeer Kumar @ Ranbeer Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Cr. Misc. No. 21484 of 2020 ====================================================== Ranbeer Kumar @ Ranbeer Yadav, S/o Shankar Yadav, R/o Village-Parana Tola Mohania, P.S.-Sonbarsa (Kash Nagar O.P.), District-Saharsa. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar .. ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Shiva Shankar Sharma, Advocate Mr. Arun Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent State:

Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 24-07-2020 Heard Mr. Shiva Shankar Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State of Bihar. This application for grant of anticipatory bail arises out of Udakishunganj P.S. Case No. 43 of 2017, registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner has criminal antecedent inasmuch as he is an accused in another case for the offence punishable under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code.

The First Information Report was registered against unknown. There is allegation of snatching of motorcycle and a mobile phone by the miscreants. It transpires that the looted motorcycle was reportedly recovered from possession of one

Ashok Yadav and this petitioner.

It is relevant to note that the petitioner has referred to paragraph 49 of the case diary to contend that the Investigating Officer of the case had visited the village of the informant in connection with other case, when he was told about recovery of the stolen motorcycle. It is evident that the petitioner has unauthorisedly accessed the case diary, which is a confidential document, as apparently the investigation has yet not been completed. It appear, thus that he is interfering with the investigation.

Considering the nature of offence and petitioner's criminal antecedent, I am not inclined to grant him anticipatory bail.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Court below within a period of eight weeks from today and seek regular bail, if so advised. If he does so, his application for regular bail shall be considered by the learned Court below on its own merit without being prejudiced by rejection of present application for grant of anticipatory bail.

It is indicated that defect, if any, shall be removed within two months.

Since there is a lock down, the Court has considered it

appropriate to adopt following procedure for communication of the present order :- (i) The order, which has been dictated during the course of the proceedings of virtual Court, shall be communicated to me on my e-mail I.D. by the Secretary. (ii) The corrected copy of the order shall be transmitted by me from my e-mail I.D. to the Secretary, which shall be treated to be the authentic copy of the order passed by this Court today in the present proceeding.

(iii) Hard copy of the order, duly signed by me, shall be preserved in my residential-office for documentation and future use, if any.

(iv) Let a copy of the order be communicated to the learned Court below through e-mail or any other appropriate electronic mode by the Registry.

Let steps be taken by the Registry for uploading of the present order without compromising with the norms of social distancing.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Pawan/- U T